Tulsi had like what ~2% in the primaries? She had no shot my man. First woman President and being in their 30s ain't happening anytime soon dude.

says who she had my vote , low info voters will vote for whoever the dnc backs. they chose not to go with tulsi because she had an anti military industrial complex foregin policy.

Seek professional help.

Trump never polled higher than 50% and lost in a fair election.

I loled

So I guess Trump comes storming back in April is the new nutjob thing now? I wondered what they were going to go to after the inauguration. Of course - 5D chess - have to let them be in power for a while to expose themselves even further. GENIOUS!

Fair election? according to who? The election was hijacked, it's called cyber warfare.

Trump's not letting China take over our country. They've already taken over our courts and gov't. It's alil too deep for you, I'm sure. Just sit back and watch the show. It's not over till the fat man sings.

According to every court in the land, including tons of Trump-selected judges.

Not sure if trolling or true cultist. If cultist, this won't happen, and you'll either be gone or have a new story about what's coming SOON! It's always the exact same nonsense.

You wouldn't, ...you know, ...be on any betting sites, putting money down on that would you?

Just asking before Monteroy does.

Judges are bought. One of the top supreme court judges basically works for China. Don't worry it'll all come out soon. We're at war, executive orders were recently signed regarding the cyber war we're in with China. The low level operatives are being rounded up as we speak and the big name people have their backs up against walls. It's a bigger situation than anyone would ever imagine.

I think you're trolling now.

There's 30K armed troops in and around the capitol due to treason and what's coming, not for a virtual inauguration. Palosi's been seen surrounded by female US Marshals and then called in sick. Get some pop corn and watch the show. This is gonna be a change for the better, it's good vs evil.

For someone with 8k posts it has got to be trolling at this point.

If HIV has shown us anything, it is that this baseless “BOTH SIIIIIDES” argument has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. If you try to support it with some facts and logical thinking, you may get some engaged discussion here

So those troops are just going to hang out until April, then arrest everyone?

A couple sources are saying April is when it ends. They're first gonna release the classified info on Monday proving the corruption. When you're at war, there's no transfer of power. It's now or never. The Military Industrial Complex and satanic reptiles are going down.

So does Biden get inaugurated or not? When this Monday thing doesn't happen, and Biden is inaugurated w/o incident on Wednesday, will you reconsider the veracity of your sources?

GFY

I see a hint of Lizard People in that, and I am hoping that is the start of some great material. I for one welcome our new Antifa Lizard People overlords.

All the best.

Damn if conservatives gave a rip about China buying us out--like wth have they been doing the last ~50yrs??

Well, glad to hear you can see that much.

Where the **** do you get this stuff from? I've suggested nothing of the sort. Unlike you, I don't assume I know the mindset of 75 million people, or just make things up about them:


If I did think that, why would it be bad news if I was wrong? What about my posts makes you think I would ever want 75 million people to be QAnon supporters, I have no idea.

LOL, OK. You may not be a QAnon supporter, but you have a fair bit in common with many of them. Like this:

This seems to be one of the calling cards of all conspiracy theorists. If other people don't believe the same things they do, it means they're sheep listening to nothing but the "MSM", not paying attention to anything else, and if they just opened their eyes they'd see what's so blatantly obvious. The thought that others actually have seen or read some of the same things they have, but simply didn't find them compelling and/or credible never even occurs to them. The conspiracy theorists believe the stuff because, um, they read it, so obviously anyone who doesn't believe must not have read it, right?

It didn't shock anyone with a brain in their heads. Trump has been signaling for 5 years that he would do this. Hell, forget signaling, he's been outright saying that if he didn't win, it would have to be fraud. And he has millions of people like you have bought it all hook, line, and sinker. Whatever he says, you just swallow it up. Nonsense like there's no way Biden could have won, look at the rallies!

Riiiiight. Just willfully ignorant of the mountains of evidence that they haven't even been able to show in court when given their chances to prove the fraud.

Poor Trump. The 'riggers' just chase him around all through his life and any time he thinks he might lose anything it is, of course, because it had to be rigged.

There simply cannot be any other explanation.

During the primaries when he was not yet a favorite we need to 're-run the election or just throw out any Cruz votes'...



When it was still looking like Hilary might win...



And even after winning the GE, but when it came down to the popular vote he is saying 'I won if you simply don't count the votes for Hilary'...





So ya, as fishfood69er succinctly sees it, the 'riggers' are just chasing Trump from election to election, breaking into systems, over riding processes in each and every one of them, but Trump prevails in most of them HOWEVER if Trump EVER loses it is proof they rigged it. There simply cannot be any other explanation to the wide eyed and informed. Has to be rigged.

... always a principled stand.

Billionaires backed Republicans who sought to reverse US election results

Guardian analysis shows Club for Growth has spent $20m supporting 42 rightwing lawmakers who voted to invalidate Biden victory

An anti-tax group funded primarily by billionaires has emerged as one of the biggest backers of the Republican lawmakers who sought to overturn the US election results, according to an analysis by the Guardian.

The Club for Growth has supported the campaigns of 42 of the rightwing Republicans senators and members of Congress who voted last week to challenge US election results, doling out an estimated $20m to directly and indirectly support their campaigns in 2018 and 2020, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

About 30 of the Republican hardliners received more than $100,000 in indirect and direct support from the group.

The Club for Growth’s biggest beneficiaries include Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, the two Republican senators who led the effort to invalidate Joe Biden’s electoral victory, and the newly elected far-right gun-rights activist Lauren Boebert, a QAnon conspiracy theorist. Boebert was criticised last week for tweeting about the House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s location during the attack on the Capitol, even after lawmakers were told not to do so by police.

Public records show the Club for Growth’s largest funders are the billionaire Richard Uihlein, the Republican co-founder of the Uline shipping supply company in Wisconsin, and Jeffrey Yass, the co-founder of Susquehanna International Group, an options trading group based in Philadelphia that also owns a sports betting company in Dublin.

While Uihlein and Yass have kept a lower profile than other billionaire donors such as Michael Bloomberg and the late Sheldon Adelson, their backing of the Club for Growth has helped to transform the organization from one traditionally known as an anti-regulatory and anti-tax pro-business pressure group to one that backs some of the most radical and anti-democratic Republican lawmakers in Congress.

“Here’s the thing about the hyper wealthy. They believe that their hyper-wealth grants them the ability to not be accountable. And that is not the case. If you’ve made billions of dollars, good on you. But that doesn’t make you any less accountable for funding anti-democratic or authoritarian candidates and movements,” said Reed Galen, a former Republican strategist who co-founded the Lincoln Project, the anti-Trump campaigners.

Galen said he believed groups such as the Club for Growth now served to cater to Republican donors’ own personal agenda, and not what used to be considered “conservative principles”.

The Lincoln Project has said it would devote resources to putting pressure not just on Hawley, which the group accused of committing sedition, but also on his donors....

So I had a chance to have a chat with a guy who is a Civil rights and constitutional lawyer.

I asked him what he thought Trump's play was with regards to putting so much into Pence not doing his duty and receiving the Electoral College results.

He said, he and some colleagues had discussed it and this is their view.

Trump's goal was to create a legit Constitutional crisis or, at a minimum the appearance of one.

Most of us would read the language of "the VP shall receive the Electoral College results..." as a requirement, and something we must do, which is in fact how it written and intended. It is also Mike Pence's position.

But to Trump and his Admin, there is no such requirement until you have fought every last option to make him do it. The law says that the Head of the IRS 'SHALL" provide the tax returns..." is meaningless to Trump and his Admin, until forced.

And even if his lawyers advise him they have no chance and will ultimately lose that never deters Trump and never has even in his personal business. He ultimately uses litigation to simply buy time hoping they other side will fatigue and make concessions or some other option will appear, or it will be meaningless by the time it ultimately settles.

So the game here was if Pence refused to receive the Electoral College votes, the Dems and others would scream shame, but a 'required' step towards the swearing in of the new POTUS would not be completed. If Pence went further and entered in an alternative slate that would have clouded the situation even more.

Again we know none of those are acceptable but the point would be that Trump would then declare 'this election is in dispute and he cannot step down until it is resolved'.

So then the question becomes would the Supreme Court immediately convene and 'order Pence to do his job', or would it pass the Jan 20 date and would Roberts show up anyway to swear in Biden on the 20th, even if not settled. Or would it drag out, with Pelosi put in charge until they had their day in court.

This giving Trump the ability to continue to fund raise but also a continuation of the false belief he might win. Something he seemed to legit believe.

Anyway, i found it interesting. It meshed a lot with what I had theorized on this sight as to Trumps motives.